 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| PARAKATH radio Monday's at 9pm |
Welcome - Καλωσόρισμα - Hoş Geldiniz - оказать прием - willkommen - Bienvenue
| ©2009 Pontian Association of Montreal, "Efxinos Pontos" - Σύλλογος Ποντίων Μοντρεάλ, "Έυξεινος Πόντος". ©1999-2009 Lefter. All Rights Reserved. |
Ethnic Cleansing
Whose genocide are you on?
Michael Crowley, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Are you a current or former leader of the House of Representatives? Then the government of Turkey wants to talk to you! In
recent years, Turkey has hired as lobbyists at least four men who held senior House posts. Currently working Capitol Hill for
the Turks is former Democratic leader Richard Gephardt. Schmoozing Republicans is the former House speaker, Dennis
Hastert. Hastert was signed up to replace Bob Livingston, a former House speaker-designate (now plying his trade for the
Libyans), and former House Republican leader Dick Armey. Steny Hoyer, what are you waiting for? Have you seen Gephardt's
new house in Sonoma?
Turkey pays these men handily to defend its many interests in Washington. But one mission overrides all the others: blocking
an official U.S. government declaration that the Ottoman Turks committed genocide against the Armenian people at the end of
World War I. For years, lobbyists for Turkey have smothered congressional efforts, fueled by America's vocal Armenian
community, to pass a resolution recognizing the genocide. They warn that such a blasphemy of Turkey's founding fathers
would ignite public outrage there, alienating a moderate Muslim ally and perhaps costing the United States access to an air
base vital for Iraq operations. The result has been a classic perennial Washington issue that mostly serves to appease
interest groups and enrich lobbyists, much like asbestos reform or tax loophole fights--except, in this case, there are up to 1.5
million murdered innocents involved.
But, as Barack Obama prepares for his upcoming state visit to Ankara in early April and the day of a traditional presidential
statement to the Armenian-American community that follows a couple of weeks later, this debate may finally be coming to a
head. Obama is the first American president elected after explicitly promising to invoke the dreaded G-word. And, thus, a trip
designed to defuse tension between the United States and the Muslim world will have the small matter of genocide culpability
hanging over it like a foul odor.
As a candidate, Obama was perfectly clear. "The facts are undeniable," he said in a January 2008 statement. He called the
massacre not an allegation or matter of opinion--many Turks maintain that the killing resulted from anarchy accompanying the
Ottoman Empire's collapse--but a clear exercise in race-based killing: "As president," he vowed, "I will recognize the Armenian
genocide." Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, who said America's "morality" and "credibility" demanded such a statement, agreed.
And why not? Last year, all were presidential candidates looking for easy ways to sound bold and noble, not to mention
courting Armenian-American votes and money.
But, now that Obama is in the Oval Office, the world may seem rather more complex than it did on the campaign trail. The
smell of capitulation is in the air. "At this moment, our focus is on how, moving forward, the United States can help Armenia
and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past," a National Security Council spokesman told the Los Angeles Times
last week. When a top Turkish official emerged from a recent meeting with National Security Advisor Jim Jones, he sounded
sanguine on the question, declining to say whether Obama was standing by his campaign promise, yet adding cheerily that
he and Jones "went through all these issues in a very friendly and cooperative manner."
Obama has also been joined by a new cadre of influential advisers. Take his chief of staff. When Congress considered a
genocide resolution in late 2007, then-Representative Rahm Emanuel opposed it. The new State Department official with
purview over Turkey, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Phillip Gordon, has warned about a possible
anti-American backlash in Turkey resulting from recognition, and, in 2006, Gordon wrote that "[u]ltimately, historians, not
governments, should be the ones to decide these sensitive issues." Jones has close ties to the Turkish military from his time
as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. And Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, strongly opposed the 2007
resolution, which he feared could result in Turkey cutting off supply lines the United States relies on to support its troops in
Iraq.
Obama can be forgiven for dodging the explosive subject of genocide while he is a guest in Ankara next week. But, when the
Armenians' annual day of genocide remembrance comes on April 24, the White House will be expected to release a
statement. In the past, these proclamations have been exercises in strained euphemism. Last year, for instance, George W.
Bush lamented "mass killings and forced exile" and "epic human tragedy"--but did not use the term "genocide." The
Armenian-Americans who supported Obama in November (John McCain never endorsed genocide recognition) expect him to
use the occasion to say the magic word.
But sources on Capitol Hill and those familiar with Ankara's thinking both predict Obama will punt on the issue. "I fully expect
him to fold," laments one human rights activist who wishes otherwise. "I would be shocked if he didn't." But the real shock
should be in seeing Obama break such a clear promise. Reasonable people can differ on whether recognizing the genocide
is worth the possible consequences. It is not debatable, however, that Obama made a promise, or that he ran as a man of
integrity and principle. To be sure, Obama's high-minded rhetoric has always concealed a deeply rooted pragmatism (think of
the convenient difference between troops and "combat troops" in Iraq). But there is a line between pragmatism and hypocrisy,
and Obama may be about to cross it.
Last week, Aram Hamparian, the genial executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America, sat in his Dupont
Circle town-house office surrounded by books with titles like The Banality of Denial and Blood and Soil and recounted how his
grandparents had been forced out of their villages by the Ottomans and marched through the Syrian Desert. Hamparian said
he wasn't nervous that the cause he has worked on for years will once again lose out to Turkey's strategic clout. "The basic
civics-class understanding of the situation should be that folks run for office on a certain promise, and they should govern that
way," Hamparian said. Hopelessly naive words? In Barack Obama's Washington, they shouldn't be.
Whose genocide are you on?
Michael Crowley, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Are you a current or former leader of the House of Representatives? Then the government of Turkey wants to talk to you! In
recent years, Turkey has hired as lobbyists at least four men who held senior House posts. Currently working Capitol Hill for
the Turks is former Democratic leader Richard Gephardt. Schmoozing Republicans is the former House speaker, Dennis
Hastert. Hastert was signed up to replace Bob Livingston, a former House speaker-designate (now plying his trade for the
Libyans), and former House Republican leader Dick Armey. Steny Hoyer, what are you waiting for? Have you seen Gephardt's
new house in Sonoma?
Turkey pays these men handily to defend its many interests in Washington. But one mission overrides all the others: blocking
an official U.S. government declaration that the Ottoman Turks committed genocide against the Armenian people at the end of
World War I. For years, lobbyists for Turkey have smothered congressional efforts, fueled by America's vocal Armenian
community, to pass a resolution recognizing the genocide. They warn that such a blasphemy of Turkey's founding fathers
would ignite public outrage there, alienating a moderate Muslim ally and perhaps costing the United States access to an air
base vital for Iraq operations. The result has been a classic perennial Washington issue that mostly serves to appease
interest groups and enrich lobbyists, much like asbestos reform or tax loophole fights--except, in this case, there are up to 1.5
million murdered innocents involved.
But, as Barack Obama prepares for his upcoming state visit to Ankara in early April and the day of a traditional presidential
statement to the Armenian-American community that follows a couple of weeks later, this debate may finally be coming to a
head. Obama is the first American president elected after explicitly promising to invoke the dreaded G-word. And, thus, a trip
designed to defuse tension between the United States and the Muslim world will have the small matter of genocide culpability
hanging over it like a foul odor.
As a candidate, Obama was perfectly clear. "The facts are undeniable," he said in a January 2008 statement. He called the
massacre not an allegation or matter of opinion--many Turks maintain that the killing resulted from anarchy accompanying the
Ottoman Empire's collapse--but a clear exercise in race-based killing: "As president," he vowed, "I will recognize the Armenian
genocide." Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, who said America's "morality" and "credibility" demanded such a statement, agreed.
And why not? Last year, all were presidential candidates looking for easy ways to sound bold and noble, not to mention
courting Armenian-American votes and money.
But, now that Obama is in the Oval Office, the world may seem rather more complex than it did on the campaign trail. The
smell of capitulation is in the air. "At this moment, our focus is on how, moving forward, the United States can help Armenia
and Turkey work together to come to terms with the past," a National Security Council spokesman told the Los Angeles Times
last week. When a top Turkish official emerged from a recent meeting with National Security Advisor Jim Jones, he sounded
sanguine on the question, declining to say whether Obama was standing by his campaign promise, yet adding cheerily that
he and Jones "went through all these issues in a very friendly and cooperative manner."
Obama has also been joined by a new cadre of influential advisers. Take his chief of staff. When Congress considered a
genocide resolution in late 2007, then-Representative Rahm Emanuel opposed it. The new State Department official with
purview over Turkey, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Phillip Gordon, has warned about a possible
anti-American backlash in Turkey resulting from recognition, and, in 2006, Gordon wrote that "[u]ltimately, historians, not
governments, should be the ones to decide these sensitive issues." Jones has close ties to the Turkish military from his time
as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. And Obama's defense secretary, Robert Gates, strongly opposed the 2007
resolution, which he feared could result in Turkey cutting off supply lines the United States relies on to support its troops in
Iraq.
Obama can be forgiven for dodging the explosive subject of genocide while he is a guest in Ankara next week. But, when the
Armenians' annual day of genocide remembrance comes on April 24, the White House will be expected to release a
statement. In the past, these proclamations have been exercises in strained euphemism. Last year, for instance, George W.
Bush lamented "mass killings and forced exile" and "epic human tragedy"--but did not use the term "genocide." The
Armenian-Americans who supported Obama in November (John McCain never endorsed genocide recognition) expect him to
use the occasion to say the magic word.
But sources on Capitol Hill and those familiar with Ankara's thinking both predict Obama will punt on the issue. "I fully expect
him to fold," laments one human rights activist who wishes otherwise. "I would be shocked if he didn't." But the real shock
should be in seeing Obama break such a clear promise. Reasonable people can differ on whether recognizing the genocide
is worth the possible consequences. It is not debatable, however, that Obama made a promise, or that he ran as a man of
integrity and principle. To be sure, Obama's high-minded rhetoric has always concealed a deeply rooted pragmatism (think of
the convenient difference between troops and "combat troops" in Iraq). But there is a line between pragmatism and hypocrisy,
and Obama may be about to cross it.
Last week, Aram Hamparian, the genial executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America, sat in his Dupont
Circle town-house office surrounded by books with titles like The Banality of Denial and Blood and Soil and recounted how his
grandparents had been forced out of their villages by the Ottomans and marched through the Syrian Desert. Hamparian said
he wasn't nervous that the cause he has worked on for years will once again lose out to Turkey's strategic clout. "The basic
civics-class understanding of the situation should be that folks run for office on a certain promise, and they should govern that
way," Hamparian said. Hopelessly naive words? In Barack Obama's Washington, they shouldn't be.